This is a violation of sysop guidelines. You are not allowed to protect a page where an edit war occurs in which you yourself are involved. Please do not do this. I have unprotected the page. Sysops are NOT editors.
It's not as strict as that. I see nothing wrong with:
1. Telling the list you protected the article (and why). 2. Making ONE LAST EFFORT toward neutral POV. 3. Then butting out until a consensus emerges.
I would only worry, Erik, if someone made a practice of getting the last word by repeatedly doing the above.
In this case, another sysop selected another version to revert it to, so no harm was done.
Ed Poor ---- "Don't cry till you're hurt". --Robert Heinlein, ''The Man Who Traveled in Elephants''
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 09:04:20AM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
It's not as strict as that. I see nothing wrong with:
- Telling the list you protected the article (and why).
- Making ONE LAST EFFORT toward neutral POV.
- Then butting out until a consensus emerges.
You may see nothing wrong with it, but I, for one, do.
The consensus has always been that sysop 'powers' are not there to act as a trump card during editing disputes.
If we want to change that, we should make sure we really do have consensus that the change is wanted, and announce it rather more widely than on this list.
-M-
I would say that absent some kind of serious emergency, sysops should never protect pages that they've edited recently.
- Telling the list you protected the article (and why).
- Making ONE LAST EFFORT toward neutral POV.
- Then butting out until a consensus emerges.
The problem I see with this is that once an article is protected, it's hard for a consensus to emerge.
--Jimbo